Reflections by
Comrade Fidel CastroNuclear
Weapons
and
the
Survival
of
Homo
SapiensPart
One|Part
Two

Part One - October 7, 2010

During the ceremony commemorating
the 50th Anniversary of the Committees for the Defense of the
Revolution I expressed my opinion that “The Cuban Revolution, on our
small and ignored island, was newly born, but coming into this world
just 90 miles from the powerful empire, caused it to test the arrogance
of the dominant superpower in our hemisphere and in a large part of the
world.” I promised to speak about the statements I had made to the
United Nations two days previously. I warned that our struggle would be
“long and hard.” For the time being, I must postpone this task. Another
subject at the moment is more important.

Our people, as many around the world know, are characterized by their
high level of knowledge, which they have achieved during the past five
decades, after the country emerged from its semi-colonized and
mono-crop producing state and its considerable levels of illiterate and
semi-illiterate people with low general education levels and scientific
knowledge. The Cuban people had to be fully informed about what nuclear
energy could mean for the fate of the human species.

“I think —I said verbatim on September 28— that it might be a good idea
to make known some of these ideas about what a nuclear weapon is. I
have seen images about what critical mass is, and what its use as a
weapon represents: that is to employ the energy that drives the
universe for war.” At “3,000 degrees Celsius, practically all metals
and materials ” melt. “What would happen then at 10,000 degrees? [...]
Well, an atomic explosion produced by critical mass could reach
millions of degrees.

To give an idea of the destructive power of this type of energy, I
would like to add to this Reflection something that Harry S. Truman
wrote in his diary on July 25, 1945 about a test made in the state of
New Mexico: An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling, to
put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete
disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet
deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 a mile
away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible
for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.”

In the current stage of the world, when some 200 countries have been
recognized as independent states with the right to participate in the
United Nations —ridiculous legal fiction—, the only chance to forge a
ray of hope is by leading the masses, in a rational and calm way, to
the understanding that all the inhabitants of the planet are facing a
grave risk.

Within our limited relations, we have had the opportunity, in less than
three weeks, to receive two eminent figures. The first one was Alan
Robock, an emeritus researcher and professor at Rutgers University, New
Jersey. While working with a group of courageous colleagues, the US
scientist proved the Nuclear Winter theory and advanced it to its
current level. Only 100 of the 25,000 strategic nuclear weapons that
exist today would be enough to cause this tragedy, he explained.

The Nuclear Winter theory has shown that “If such weapons did not
exist, they could not be used. And at present, there is absolutely no
rational argument for their use. If they cannot be used, they must be
destroyed. By doing so we would protect ourselves from accidents,
mistaken calculations or any bouts of insanity.”

“ Any country that at present may be considering the nuclear option
must acknowledge that by adopting such a decision, it would be
endangering not only its own population but the entire world.

“ The use of nuclear weapons in the event of a total attack against an
enemy would be suicidal due to the anomalous cold and darkness caused
by the smoke from the fires generated by the bomb.”

My reply to the noble scientist was: “It makes no difference if we know
about this, what is needed is for the world to know.”

On October 2, another eminent figure of great authority and prestige
arrived in our country, economist Michel Chossudovsky, the director of
the Center for Research on Globalization and chief editor of the
renowned and increasing influential Website Global Research. He is an
emeritus professor at the University of Ottawa and a consultant for
several international institutions, including the United Nations
Development Program, the African Development Bank, the United Nations
Population Fund. He has an extensive list of other connections and
merits that would take a long time to mention.

One of the first activities of the Canadian economist and writer was a
lecture he gave to students, professors and researchers in economics,
at the Manuel Sanguily Theater, University of Havana. He presented his
lecture and answered all questions in perfect Spanish; a commendable
effort. I noted down the main ideas from his presentation, especially
those related to the risk of war employing atomic weapons.

“ in the Universities of North America, the neoliberal economy
represents totally fictitious realities. It is very difficult for
economists [...] to analyze the economic reality [...] there is no
notion of the economic actor.”

“ the financial manipulation of covert operations by power groups, of
the fraud entailed by this economic system [...] is something beyond
the control of individuals ”

“At present, I would like to focus more on the issue of the military
venture underway. It is an alliance between the United States, NATO and
Israel: a military project, but at the same time, an economic project,
since it is a project aimed at economic conquest.”

“ these military operations meet [...] objectives of an economic nature
[...] the major economic objectives are oil and natural gas [...] from
the eastern Mediterranean to the Chinese borders and the Caspian Sea,
South of Saudi Arabia [...] the Middle East-Central Asia. This region
—according to statistics— contains around 60 percent of the world
reserves of oil and natural gas.”

“If we compare this to the US reserves; they are 30 times greater. The
United States has less than two percent of the world reserves [...] and
they are unleashing a war [...] to control these resources in the name
of their oil companies [...] the configuration of economic power behind
this war is made up of oil companies such as British Petroleum,
Chevron, Exxon [...], the big Anglo-American oil companies that are
there and have interests in those regions.”

“British Petroleum [...] was formerly the Anglo-Persian Oil Company,
but this Anglo Persian Oil Company was a project of conquest both of
Iran and Iraq after the Second World War ”

“If you add the Muslim countries to Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Brunei, they represent 70 percent of the global crude oil
reserves [...] The United States is carrying out a religious war
against the inhabitants of those countries where there is oil. [...] It
is a holy crusade against the Muslim world, but the religious objective
is only a pretext, the justification to unleash such a war. [...] The
statements made by Obama, by Hillary Clinton [...] lead us to believe
that the United States, with all its military power and military
spending of nearly 1 trillion dollars a year, is waging a war against
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

“ contradictions of this discourse always come from official sources
[...] the CIA recently published a document revealing that Al Qaeda has
less than 50 members in Afghanistan [...] That war is not against
Muslim terrorists; but the pretext for the war is to fight in favor of
democracy and to remove the evil.”

“It is interesting to note that military documents read: ‘If you know
what you want, let’s go and get them, they are evil.’ There is lots of
rhetoric [...] it is a discourse that nobody will question, because the
authority, President Obama, comes and says, ‘We must look for Bin
Laden, we do not know where he is, but if necessary [...] we will go
after him with our nuclear weapons.’”

“After September 11, the doctrine of preventive war and preventive
nuclear war was formulated [...] stating that it was fair, based on the
objective of fighting terrorism, to use our nuclear weapons against
them. And media distortions presented Bin Laden even as a nuclear power
[...]the so-called non-state nuclear powers [...] non-state nuclear
powers are allied with Iran which, they say, is a nuclear power even
though there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

“ The United States and its allies are threatening Iran with the
nuclear weapon using the justification of the non-existing nuclear
weapons in Iran, and the pretext is that Iran constitutes a threat to
global security.”

“This is the current discourse. Unfortunately this discourse has
already been supported by some governments, [...] all the NATO
governments and Israel are supporting the option of a preventive
nuclear war against Iran [...], and that Iran supports Bin Laden and
that it is necessary to impose ‘democracy’ on Iran by employing the
nuclear weapon.”

“ We are genuinely facing a situation in which the future of humanity
is affected, because a nuclear attack on Iran —as is already being
announced, and war preparations have been underway since 2004— would
signify, in the first place: that during this war in the Middle East,
Central Asia, currently limited to three theaters Afghanistan, Iraq and
Palestine, we will witness the escalation of this military process with
the possibility of a war scenario that would be the third world war.”

"The Second World War was a series of regional wars [...] war in Europe
[...] war in the Pacific [...] war in Africa [...] several theaters
[...] Today it is the integration of communication systems and the
centralization of the military command in one place: the US Strategic
Command in Nebraska [...] With the militarization of space using the
system of satellites, the so-called intelligent missile systems, there
was a regionalization of military operations [...] under US military
planning, but coordinated. [...] US Central Command [...] Central Asia
and the Middle East. [...] SOUTHCOM based in Miami. [...] Africa
Command [...] which is based in Europe, not Africa [...] There is a
series of regional commands, but the dynamics of global war is very
different from previous wars [...] a coordination in real time,
unhurried, a single command, the air defense system of all the
countries belonging to NATO, the US and now Israel, is integrated.
[...] we are in a vastly different world, with extremely sophisticated
weapons; in addition to nuclear weapons we also have electromagnetic
weapons, and the coordination of all these operations. [...] NATO now
also has an integrated military command, an extremely coherent
alliance, which can launch operations anywhere in the world. [...] yes
they do have the capacity, in terms of weapons of mass destruction,
which is incredibly sophisticated.”

"All of this is a contract for a few companies that produce the
weapons, in the United States they call it the Defense Contract, the
companies that have agreements with the Defense Department [...]US
military spending represents 75 percent of the revenue from household
taxes, not the entire income of the Federal State, but the income
generated from what individuals and families pay each year [...] more
or less $ 1.1 trillion, and military expenditure is about $ 750 billion
[...] more or less, 75 percent. [...] these are the official figures,
in reality, military spending is much higher than that.”

"... The US now has a military spending that is a little more than 50
percent of the military spending of all the other countries combined.
[...] Its economy is also extremely biased in favor of a war economy,
with all the consequences of the collapse of social services, health
care.”

"The state of poverty that exists in the United States, both due to the
crisis and the military economy, is extremely serious. It is not the
product of a lack of resources, but rather the result of a transfer of
wealth into fewer hands, a stagnation that is caused by the compression
of living standards and also by the state’s allocation of almost all of
its income to sustain the war economy, on the one hand, and the
so-called bank bailout."

"... in the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union
there was a kind of understanding [...] I do not know how to say it in
Spanish ... an understanding that it would not be used because it was
recognized as a weapon that could wipe out society as a whole.

"First came the doctrine of preventive nuclear war, based on the
reclassification of nuclear weapons as conventional weapons [...]
During the Cold War there was the red telephone, they had to say who
was in Moscow ... At the time there was a recognition that it was
dangerous, right? "

"... in 2002 it was as follows: There was a propaganda campaign within
the armed forces saying that tactical nuclear weapons were safe for the
civilian population [...] safe for the surrounding civilian population,
without causing damage to the civilian population around the site of
the blast. This classification was used for the nuclear bomb they
called the mini-nuke —mini-nuke means small nuclear bomb. [...]
According to this ideology, this scientific falsification, the new
generation of nuclear bombs was presented as being very different from
the strategic bomb [...] I have a pack of cigarettes; I do not know who
smokes here, ‘Smoking can damage your health.’ [...] The same thing the
Pentagon did, they changed the label; with the backing of bought or
co-opted scientists, they have changed the label on the nuclear bomb.
[...] ‘This nuclear bomb is safe for civilians, it is a humanitarian
bomb.’ I'm not exaggerating; you can consult the documentation about
it. [...] this is internal propaganda, it is propaganda in the armed
forces themselves; these are the words they use ‘safe for the
surrounding civilian population’ [...] as you know, it’s as if you were
using a video camera, there is a manual for this bomb. "Another factor:
it is not the commander in chief, that is to say the US president, who
decides to use the nuclear bomb. The nuclear bomb, reclassified by the
Senate in 2002 with that category —a small bomb, which is up to six
times the Hiroshima bomb—, is now part of the arsenal of conventional
weapons [...] in military terminology it is also in the armory, the
tool box. [...] it is in the tool box of the commanding general, three
stars [...] the guy says: [...] 'here's the mini-Nuke, he’s reading the
manual [...] It says right here that you can use that nuclear bomb. '"

"I'm not exaggerating, once the propaganda is in the military manuals,
it becomes a line of conduct, and the problem is as follows: the
inquisitorial discourse is so sophisticated, so advanced that it could
lead to decisions that are extremely severe for the future of the human
race, and therefore we need to come together and unite against that
military project, that war project."

"I mentioned the $ 750 billion in military spending, and the $1.5
trillion used to bail out the banks, these are the operations that were
implemented in 2008-2009 [...] if military spending is added to the
payments made to the banks, we come to a figure that is greater than
all state revenues. In one year, state revenues are around $ 2.3
trillion. A large portion of this amount is used to finance the war and
fraud, a product of the economic crisis [...] if we look at the program
implemented under the Bush [administration] ... it was $ 750 billion,
and afterwards another similar scheme was implemented at the beginning
of the Obama mandate [...] a trillion or so [...] the total of these
rescue operations, by various means, is estimated between 6 and 8
trillion dollars, which would be three or four times the annual income
of the US Federal Government. "

"... The State is going to go into debt and those who are monitoring
the state are the banks, right [...] the same people who are the
recipients of the rescue operation in turn are also the creditors of
the state, and that circular process is called financing your debt
[...] the banks say: 'Well, they have to give us money, because we have
to finance the debt from the fiscal deficit, due to both spending on
defense and rescue operations. "

“We are in an extremely serious situation regarding the US fiscal
structure, which is leading to a de facto privatization of the state,
because there is no money to fund health, education, public works,
whatever. Then, gradually, it is a privatization of the state and also
the privatization of war. This is already underway; an important part
of this war is being carried out by private companies, mercenaries,
which are also linked to the military or industrial complex."

To be continued tomorrow.

Fidel Castro RuzOctober 7, 20108: 47 p.m.

Part Two - October 8, 2010

On Thursday, Michel Chossudovsky, professor emeritus at
the
University of Ottawa, was invited to appear on the Mesa Redonda
television program. He participated along with Osvaldo Martinez,
director of the Research Center on World Economics.

Of course, I listened to their debate with particular interest.
Chossudovsky spoke in Spanish and showed a complete command of the
issues at hand. He is scrupulous about the meaning of words, including
phrases coined in English to precisely express a certain idea when they
do not have equivalent terms in Spanish.

Chossudovsky said that in the United States an inescapable systemic
crisis has been created, which they are trying to resolve by employing
the same measures that caused it. He explained that there has been an
impoverishment of all social groups, which affects the workers and
middle class much more than the rich. The U.S. government is calling
for austerity measures at a global level, and applying "remedies" and
"prescriptions" that were the cause of the crisis, faced with the
necessity of financing military spending and bailing out banks.

He confirmed that they have been preparing for war against Iran since
2003, and are also threatening Russia, China, North Korea, Syria,
Lebanon and other countries in this vast region.

He energetically criticized the justification for the introduction of
the so-called mini-nuke among the arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons,
and of the doctrine that was widely promoted prior to their
introduction, in an attempt to argue that the mini-nuke is safe for
civilians (safe for the surrounding civilian population, in English, he
explained). He noted the irony of how the mini-nukes included bombs
that fluctuated between one-third and six times the power of that which
destroyed Hiroshima.

Let us press on immediately with the synthesis of Chossudovsky's
academic address to the students and teachers at the Faculty of
Economics, University of Havana:

"... I want to mention one thing that is very important [...] this war
is not a war that creates jobs [...] It is true that the Second World
War did create jobs, in Germany under the Nazi regime [...]. That is
simply a factual observation. [...]

The same in the United States at the beginning of the Second World War,
which started for them in 1941; there was job creation and that was the
way out of the Great Depression under President Roosevelt. But this war
(referring to a Third World War) is not the same type; it is a
high-tech war, not a war of military equipment assembly. The war in
Viet Nam created jobs, as did the Korean War. This war is a war
characterized by a very sophisticated weapons system, employing highly
advanced scientific manpower, engineers and the like ... "

"... any first year student knows that if you impose austerity measures
at a national and global level –as proposed at the G-20 meetings and
also under the auspices of the International Settlements Bank, which
represents the central banks–, there is a sort of consensus that to
solve the crisis we have to implement austerity measures, that
austerity measures are not a solution, but a cause of the crisis.
Cutting the budget, cutting spending, cutting credit to small and
medium enterprises at the same time increases unemployment levels and
reduces salaries. This is the case in most European countries."

"Spain and Portugal have unemployment rates above 20 percent,
officially; the key issue here is that the proposed solution, not only
nationally, but in all countries, pronounced by the neoliberal
consensus, is that we have to implement austerity measures ... "

"... but the stagnation of the civilian economy caused, in a first
instance, because of the transfer of wealth, not just in recent years
but let's say from the beginning of the 1980s, when the so-called era
of neoliberal policies began which also led to stagnation in the
civilian economy [...] if we talk about the United States, these
measures were implemented at the end of the Bill Clinton administration
[...] the Financial Services Modernization Act, but they have created a
financial system that is not regulated, and that is involved, shall we
say, in semi-illegal activities. In some ways it is the criminalization
of the financial apparatus, and that is not just a word I'm just using,
many analysts, including The Wall Street Journal are talking about the
criminalization, because there was financial fraud in recent years, and
those who have committed this fraud are not being punished."

"... an economic crisis, in my opinion the worst in history, without
precedent, not even the 1930s, which was a very localized crisis, not a
global crisis as such, it had a dynamic in certain countries and
regions of the world. "

"... the financial war is closely linked to the war in the military
sector, there are even links between the World Bank and the Pentagon.
[...] former United States Defense ministers became presidents of the
World Bank [...] the new world order is run by financial manipulation
mechanisms [...] regime changes, destabilization of governments and
military operations of various kinds [...] capitalism has institutions,
both civilian and military, that work together, this is a very
important concept. Behind these institutions are the intellectuals, the
think tanks in Washington, there are secret clubs for the elites [... ]
the process of war, which now threatens humanity, is important at all
levels of society."

"... war is classified as a criminal act, the Nuremberg Convention
states this [...] It is the ultimate criminal act. War is a crime
against peace. [...] we have indications that this economic crisis led
to a concentration of wealth, in a few years, and a centralization of
economic power that is unprecedented in history [...] this crisis is
not spontaneous, as presented in the neoliberal economy, it is the
result of manipulation, of planning, and, at the same time, there is a
military component.

With these words, Chossudovsky concluded his address and expressed his
willingness to answer questions: " I will leave the issue of resistance
and how to reverse this process for you to debate," he said. The
students' questions were intelligent and serious. From them I have only
repeated the essential ideas.

"Moderator .- I believe I
convey the sentiments of all present, in thanking Dr. Michel
Chossudovsky for the excellent address he has given us, which has
provided us with even more awareness about the causes and consequences
of the real dangers that threaten humanity ... "

"... we will proceed with the questions that the audience deems
pertinent for our guest."

"A student .- ... we would like
to know [...] your view on the optimism that has been presented in the
media over the current crisis situation in Latin America, what is your
opinion about the possibilities of addressing this crisis in the region
... "

"Thank you"

"Michel Chossudovsky .- The
Caribbean region is identified as a region extremely rich in both oil
and gas, and not just Venezuela and Colombia, the truth is that there
are known reserves because the oil companies have information that is
not public; but what is public is that this region is extremely rich.

"The situation in Haiti is also linked to a project of resource
appropriation [...] the humanitarian situation [...] allows capital to
gain access to mineral resources and potential oil resources in the
region. [...] I'm not saying that's the only reason for the
militarization of the region. The other is drug trafficking."

"... there are geographic, geopolitical and resource objectives [...]
but also drug trafficking, because it is a very important source of
profits for capital."

"... there are two axes of the global drug trade, one is Afghanistan
and Pakistan, which represents the heroin trade, and the other is
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia. The transfer goes through Haiti and other
Caribbean countries to the U.S. market. [...] Afghanistan is an
enormously rich country, it annually produces about $200 billion in
revenues from the export of heroin, at least according to my estimates.
Since the U.S. forces entered into Afghanistan, heroin production has
increased 30 fold. Well, I digress."

"The militarization of the region and operations in Ecuador, an oil
power, Venezuela, an oil power, Mexico is also an oil power. These are
all countries that have a strategic role in the geopolitics of the U.S.
economy. "

"A student .- I am a student at
the Faculty of Economics ..."

"My question is: Is globalization, as it has been sold, as presented by
the so-called developed countries, currently viable or are there other
alternatives, such as integration models?

"Thanks."

"Michel Chossudovsky .- It is
certainly not viable.

"Globalization, as defined by the centers of power is not viable.
Perhaps it is viable for one sector, a social minority that becomes
richer, but it leads to impoverishment, and that is now very well
documented. It is part of a process that has affected developing
countries over the past 30 years. You can see the consequences in
neighboring countries, the impoverishment that exists in Brazil,
Mexico, Peru, a product of that destructive model. [...] There are many
countries that have presented different development models, as in the
case of Yugoslavia."

"... Yugoslavia had a socialist system, a market economy, a mixed
economy with a high standard of living, social services, education, and
what did they do? Since the beginning of the 1980s it was completely
destroyed and fragmented into many countries, half a dozen countries.
Why? Because Yugoslavia represented a model, an alternative that did
not suit them."

"... we can also look at the experiences of Latin America: Chile
created an alternative, but then was subjected to a military coup and a
process of destabilization that was carried out by the United States
intelligence services, by sabotage, by embargoes and such, because I
experienced that coup. "There are many examples: Tanzania, in Africa,
Algeria, there are many countries that have tried. Indonesia for
example, in the 1960s there was also a very important process [...] In
1965 a military coup, once again supported by the CIA, killed more than
500,000 people in planned kilings and a military regime was imposed,
which ceded to U.S. interests. "

"... We must produce an economic model of society as alternative to
global capitalism. We can do it. But all the alternatives, including
the Cuban model, are the subject of sabotage, embargoes, measures of
destabilization, assassinations. That is the truth. "

"... Iraq is not a socialist country, but a country that has a certain
autonomy. It is a state that does not want to be manipulated, and they
do not even want to accept capitalism, is not theirs. That's the world
today, there are countries that are capitalist but are enemies of the
United States, China is capitalist in a way, Russia too, but Russia's
style of capitalism does not suit their interests, and they want to
militarily destabilize or destroy any attempt against the economic and
geopolitical hegemony of the United States and its allies. "

"A Professor.- Your
presentation, your lecture was excellent. I used to be scared of war,
after listening to you, I'm terrified, but I'd like to ask you
something.

"At present, there are still Americans who never heard about the Viet
Nam War. So my question is the following: What do you think must be
done to raise awareness in the U.S. in order to prevent an event that,
if it occurs, will have unpredictable economic, political and social
consequences?

"Michel Chossudovsky.- That is
our main concern. More than half of those who visit our Website are
readers from the United States, and I would say that most authors are
also from the U.S. The point is that we have to expose the lies of the
media; we have to fight the sources of the lies, because if the
American people know the truth, the power and the legitimacy of their
leaders will fade overnight. What happens in the United States is that
the media, television, print and the Internet are spreading a view
which is largely biased."

"... As they listen to these inquisitorial discourses, they accept what
is false, they accept the lies; and once the lies become true, you
cannot have any real reflection and the debate terminates. This is all
part of a war propaganda that reaches all levels of society, that tries
to hide the real face of war. The number of civilians killed in Iraq is
2 million, according to estimates by well-known sources, such as the
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. There have been 2 million
civilian deaths since they arrived in 2003. Add that to the 4 million
deaths in the Congo and to one fourth of the Korean population that was
killed from bombardments during the Korean War. These facts are known,
but not by the public.

[...] there is censorship, but more than censorship is the manipulation
of information. [...] we have to fight the media, this is crucial. We
have to set up anti-war networks in all municipalities across the
United States, in Canada, and the whole world. We need to hold debates,
gain knowledge, because we have an intelligent population, but one that
is subjected to the constant pressures of conformism and from an
authority that tells them the truth, which is in fact a lie."

"... I will make an effort to give brief responses, though your
questions are very forceful, so I cannot be that brief sometimes."

"A student.- I'd like to know
if it is possible to achieve a technological change in favor of clean
technologies to stop the current ecological crisis."

"Michel Chossudovsky.- Yes,
that is a fundamental issue for our societies, but there exists a
distortion of environmental realities that yield to economic interests,
which are the main actors in the destruction of the environment."

"... the British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. There is
complicity by the U.S. state, that is to say Washington, in their
actions to hide what really occurred. Wildlife, all the marine species
along the entire coastal region of the U.S. and beyond, is threatened.
This fact has been concealed."

"It is also important to connect this event, this environmental crisis
and the war. British Petroleum is involved in the Middle East and in
the military project, which is contradictory on the one hand, while
also being responsible for the worst environmental crisis in the
history of this continent."

"A professor.- You made a brief
analysis of the U.S. economy. [...] that economy continues to define
the dynamics of the world economy. [...] I'd like to know if you think
that this economy will continue to define the dynamics of world economy
[...] or if countries like China or the so-called emerging states may
take over the role currently played by the United States?"

"Michel Chossudovsky.- Look,
about this so-called dynamics of economy, the leadership of the United
States, from an economic perspective, is not based on its productive
capacity [...] the industrial economy has been shutting down over the
past 30 years, there are no more assembly lines, production has fallen,
there is a service economy, there is the issue of intellectual property
control, there is an investment economy, there is an economy where most
of consumer goods come from China."

"... The U.S. economy is bigger than China's, but even though it is
bigger than China's economy it does not produce anything, and the GDP
–as we all are well aware– is the sum of added value. The fact is that
a large part of U.S. GDP is the result of imports from China.

"The technique is simple. If you are going to import a shirt – and I
will use more or less real prices – a dozen high quality shirts cost
$36. These figures correspond to the 1990s, since these prices are even
lower nowadays. [...] a nice shirt costs $3 at the factory; it is taken
to the United States and it costs $30, $40 or $50. What is the
resulting increase in U.S. GDP? While, $30 minus $3 equals $27 which is
added to the GDP without having any kind of production [...] This
growth may take place without any existing production; this is how a
state with an imperial economy works, production takes place in the
colonies or semi-colonies."

"... The fiction of this first world economy is based on military power
[...] this is the most important fact. The productive forces in the
United States are very weak; we can witness this in the companies going
bankrupt, in unemployment levels, etc."

"A student.- I'd like to
acknowledge your stance since it is unusual for us to see someone from
your origins strongly criticize the capitalist system as you have done.
It deserves acknowledgement."

"According to Marxism, this is a systemic crisis, not a temporary one."

"In your opinion, what is the real capacity of world public opinion and
of the possible growing awareness among the U.S. population to avoid a
nuclear conflict, if we bear in mind the strong pressure exercised by
small circles of power so frequently referred to in recent times?"

"Michel Chossudovsky.-
This is a systemic crisis, although it cannot be measured using the
guidelines set out in The Capital. The Marxist methodology is useful
for our understanding, since it is based on class conflicts, but
today's structure is quite different than that of the mid 19th century
[...] as economists, we cannot make it fit one model, we have to
consider its institutional nature, the relationship among financial
activities on the one hand, covert operations."

"... The CIA is an entity in Wall Street, a major one [...] it has
joint ventures with a large number of financial entities. [...] since
the CIA can foresee events, it can operate in marklet speculation "

"... Describing this systemic crisis is very important, but we have to
establish the way capitalism operates, its institutional structure, its
secret agencies, covert operations, both in financial markets and in
the geopolitical context, the function of the military, the decisions
of think tanks in Washington, the state entities, and we have to
identify who the actors are as well."

"I think that your second question shares a common element with the
previous ones; the need to change public opinion. But my answer is that
we need to shatter the consensus that holds up this system, which is a
lie [...] There are different codes of conduct in capitalist countries.
There are the politically active people who usually say, 'We are making
a petition, please President Obama, stop the war in Afghanistan." They
spread that message around the Internet, 'Please, sign our petition, we
are writing a letter to Obama, etc.' But all of this is futile because
it is based on the acceptance of the consensus, on the acceptance of
the president who is one of the factors, and we have to break this
inquisition."

"... People talk about the Spanish inquisition, insane from an historic
point of view, but this is even more insane, statements like, 'We are
fighting against Bin Laden and you have to join us, if not, you are a
terrorist."

"A couple of weeks ago, the FBI raided and arrested anti-war activists
and accused them of working with Bin Laden. This was reported in US
newspapers, and it is part of this dynamic to change public opinion, it
is dialectical, we need to revert and dismantle this discourse that
supports and legitimizes war and this economic project, along with the
lies such as, 'The crisis is over.'"

"You read the Wall Street Journal,
you
read
the
newspaper
and
it
says,
'The
crisis
will
come
to
an end in
January 2011,' nobody questions this statement, not even the
economists. This ritual of acceptance, is based not on a lack of
information but rather because everyone accepts it. We have to break
this ritual of accepting the consensus that stems from political power
and the financial markets."

"A student.- Sustainable
development, which for me is totally incompatible with war because
there has never been anything more destructive than the recent wars,
not only the future one that could take place, but all the recent wars
instigated by the United States."

"... They insist on the importance of human development, of boosting
the roles of local regions and territories. I'd like your opinion on
this issue, how realistic is this objective for our countries?

"Michel Chossudovsky.- I agree
with the real objective of sustainable development, but we have to look
at the word play behind this objective. This objective has been
formulated by several environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace,
WWF, [...] I am not criticizing these organizations, but if you
consider the summits held on the environment like the World Social
Forum, the G-7 summits for instance, the G-20, they hardly ever talk
about the impact of war on the environment. They make their
presentations on city pollution, global warming, but western NGOs do
not talk about war, they do not talk about the impact of war on the
environment, which is significant."

"I took part in the social summits up until 1999. As soon as I
mentioned the war in Yugoslavia, they did not invite me to participate
anymore. War might be discussed in a workshop or some other type of
meeting, but it is not an issue addressed at debates on 'Another world
is possible,' not at all. This sort of idea of global governance that
has characterized the social movements, and I am not criticizing them
because I think there are some very good people in these groups, but
they have a certain dynamic and there is something about the leadership
of these organizations that doesn't fit. [...] We cannot have an
anti-globalization movement that only focuses on certain aspects,
without taking into account the geopolitical context [...] The Unites
States and its allies at war during a large part of this era, which we
call the post-war period, that is to say, the last 50 years, are
characterized by military operations, wars, interventions by the United
States and its allies and all this, in my experience, has not been the
subject of debate or discussions at the different world forums where
they present sustainable development as a code of conduct."

With these words, Michel Chossudovsky concluded his presentation at the
University of Havana, which was warmly applauded by the students from
the Faculty of Economics, their professors and other people who filled
the Manuel Sanguily Hall that day.

Before I met with professor Chossudovsky, a coincidence occurred
spontaneously. A coincidence related to both the risks of a conflict,
which inevitably would lead to global nuclear war, and the need to
mobilize world opinion in the face of such a dramatic danger.

Along with nuclear weapons are cyber weapons. Another product of
technology which, once transferred to the military sector, threatens to
become another serious problem for the world.

The U.S. Armed Forces possesses some 15,000 communication networks and
7 million computers, as reported by journalist Rosa Miriam Elizalde on
the Cubadebate Website.

Rosa Miriam Elizalde also wrote: "Four-Star General Keith Alexander,
who has compared cyber attacks to weapons of mass destruction, affirmed
that the United States has plans to use this new war tactic in an
attack without taking into account the opinion of their allies. They
could even attack allied networks without any previous warning if they
consider that an attack was or could be generated from any of them."

I ask the readers to please excuse the length of the two parts of this
reflection. There was no way to make it shorter without sacrificing
content.

Allow me also to express – I did not forget – that today marks the 43rd
anniversary of the death of Che, and that two days ago we commemorated
the 34th anniversary of brutal Yankee killings of our Cuban compatriots
and other passengers aboard our civilian plane over Barbados.